Vladimir, In general I agree, but I do get greatly *close-minded* (pun intended) whenever users' code that worked for the past several years all of a sudden gets deadlocked after an upgrade. Making this feature optional is even worse and more confusing. In this case the best action is no action at all.
BTW, would be interesting to find out how Oracle async driver behaves in this case. D. On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 8:29 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com> wrote: > Guys, > > To build a great product we should be open minded and look to the future, > not to the past. > > Dima raised very valid point - why async is not async? Current programming > culture and demanding performance requirements pushes users towards > reactive-style programming. I do not want my thread to ever be blocked. > Instead, I want to send a number of concurrent commands and optionally > subscribe to final result. So trully async API makes total sense to me. > > But personally, my primary interest in this area is SQL. Oracle is > preparing new async driver. ADBA - async database access. It was presented > on recent JavaOne [1]. It is under active development right now - juse > weave through the mailing list [2]. Some prototypes are already there [3]. > PostgreSQL community even started adopted it [4]! > > I am not pushing for immediate actions, but at least we should understand > which way the wind is blowing. As a mid-term goals I would propose to > finally remove thread ID from our PESSIMISTIC transactions to allow for > suspend/resume in different threads. And as a next step I would think on > adopting async cache and SQL APIs. > > Vladimir. > > [1] > http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/database/application-development/jdbc/ > con1491-3961036.pdf > [2] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdbc-spec-discuss/ > [3] https://github.com/oracle/oracle-db-examples/tree/master/java/AoJ > [4] https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/issues/978 > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 9:48 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 7:46 PM, Dmitriy Govorukhin < > > dmitriy.govoruk...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I will edit IGNITE-8475, and remove all part that belong to the public > > api. > > > Is it acceptable for you? > > > > > > > Everything is acceptable, as long as the public API is safe :) > > >
